British Drones: UK's Role In Syria

Instant Explainer: The UK's Role In Syria Drone Strikes

This week marked an interesting escalation in Britain’s military engagement abroad when it was announced that Reyaad Khan – a 21-year-old from Cardiff who had travelled to Syria to fight alongside Islamic State (ISIS) – was killed by an RAF drone in a "precision airstrike" on 21 August along with another British man. David Cameron’s announcement of the strike in the Commons instantly triggered a series of military and legal questions.

Who was killed?

Reyaad Khan grew up in Cardiff and was remembered by his peers as an academically successful, well-integrated young man (who, in an odd twist of fate, had appeared on camera talking to Ed Balls, the former shadow chancellor, during a visit to a youth club). His interest in religion apparently grew more intense around 2013 and he applied to study in Saudi Arabia, before instead travelling to Syria in November of that year. By July 2014 he was boasting on Twitter of taking part in the execution of prisoners and talking about suicide belts. His friend Ruhul Amin, who appeared with him in a propaganda video, grew up in Aberdeen and was radicalised in Birmingham, before travelling to Syria. He was also killed in the same strike that saw a Hellfire missile fired from a UK Reaper drone into their vehicle as it travelled outside Islamic State’s main base of Raqqa.

Why were they killed now?

Speaking to parliament, David Cameron was clear: "Both Junaid Hussain and Reyaad Khan were British nationals based in Syria who were involved in actively recruiting ISIL sympathisers and seeking to orchestrate specific and barbaric attacks against the west including directing a number of planned terrorist attacks right here in Britain, such as plots to attack high profile public commemorations, including those taking place this summer. We should be under no illusion: their intention was the murder of British citizens, so on this occasion we ourselves took action." While there has been no official confirmation, sources have speculated that Khan was remotely orchestrating a plot to attack the UK’s VJ Day celebrations with Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs), along with an Armed Forces Day ceremony marking the death of Lee Rigby. Approval was apparently given for Khan’s death by the National Security Council (a collection of government ministers, intelligence officers and army chiefs) back in spring of this year.

Is this legal?

The discussion is clouded by the fact that, as with all matters relating to intelligence and national security, not all details are fully known by the press and public. In the most basic terms, the British government cannot normally simply kill one of their own citizens. However, the Prime Minister is believed to have been advised by the Attorney General that under Article 51 of the United Nations charter – which gives states the right to self defence – an unannounced lethal attack on Khan would have been legal due to the unique circumstances they were living in. "We took this action because there was no alternative. In this area, there is no government we can work with; we have no military on the ground to detain those preparing plots; and there was nothing to suggest that Reyaad Khan would ever leave Syria or desist from his desire to murder us at home, so we had no way of preventing his planned attacks on our country without taking direct action." While Cameron has said he will not publish the intelligence that led to this decision, it would appear to be legal.

Even if Khan’s plans were just at the planning stage, and he hadn’t actually done anything?

Yes. Over at the Head of Legal blog barrister Carl Gardner argued that a terrorist attack by IS on British civilians would meet the threshold for government retaliation and that Syria’s lack of willing or ability to stop someone like Khan planning attacks on Britain from their soil, would mean Britain was justified in violating Syrian sovereignty to carry out the attack. He also cited the ‘Caroline principles’, under which a state judges the "necessity of self defence (as) instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means, and no moment of deliberation." In short, even if Khan wasn’t about to do something that exact minute, then this may have been the UK’s only chance to take him out.

Was this a one-off?

Drones are an increasingly common part of modern warfare – some 3,500 people have been killed by them since the US started using them in 2002. However, the Guardian suggested that a "kill list" has been drawn up by the UK’s National Security Council, and that drones which were previously patrolling the warzone gathering intelligence were given permission to be armed after May’s general election. The list is believed to include the name of Mohammed Emwazi, the Jihadi John figure who has appeared in numerous ISIS propaganda videos beheading hostages. This is an escalation from previous levels of military engagement and suggests that if a UK citizen allies themselves with ISIS and threatens the UK, if the legal circumstances are right, then they can be killed anywhere.

What does this mean for the future?

The existence of the kill list makes it almost inevitable that more British nationals will be targeted in this way. This taking of action in Syria will strengthen Cameron's hand if and when he asks the Commons to vote on further military action. The success of this raid (no British or civilian casualties) combined with recent sympathy for migrants fleeing ISIS will make it easier for the PM to sell this to the public. However, there is likely to be a legal challenge about the drone strike's legitimacy and if Jeremy Corbyn wins the Labour leadership, the PM will be facing an opposition whose leader is determined to block all military action. So expect more killings, protracted legal inquiries and an ugly stalemate in Parliament.

AskMen, Become a Better Man, Big Shiny Things, Mantics and guyQ are among the federally registered trademarks of Ziff Davis Canada, Inc. and may not be used by third parties without explicit permission.